Monday, January 30, 2012

According to his home page, Kenneth Timmerman is an “investigative reporter”, a phrase that suggests he conducts investigations and then reports about them. No less an eminence than Simon Wiesenthal has endorsed him, observing, “I have spent my life tracking down the murderers of yesterday. Mr. Timmerman is tracking down the murderers of tomorrow.” And he has received awards for his efforts. Accuracy in Media (AIM), for example, announced on 31 January 2011 that he would receive recognition for his “outstanding contributions to journalism in a ceremony taking place at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference” and added that AIM “will be proud to honor his three decades of work covering national security issues.”

We have done some investigative research about Kenneth Timmerman, which we regret to report has not been reassuring. He publishes biased articles that reflect an extreme neoconservative point of view. He has attacked Ron Paul, the only GOP candidate with a sane foreign policy, and other experts who have also appeared on Press TV. He has gone so far as to assail the men whose company books satellite time for Press TV and to out them by name, an inexcusable lapse of journalistic ethics, where they are not public figures and his outrageous actions in attacking them for running their own legitimate business demonstrates a lack of ordinary human decency. And other offenses he commits run even deeper.

Perhaps the first key to understanding Kenneth Timmerman is how he presents himself. Here is one that appears on his sites: “Kenneth R. Timmerman is the New York Times best-selling author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum, 2005), among other works. His books and articles can be found at kentimmerman.com.” That Timmerman has a book about “the coming nuclear showdown with Iran” suggests that he has a vested interest in there being a nuclear showdown with Iran—which he appears to be doing his best to promote. His biography—actually, an autobiography–reeks of attempts to promote misleading accounts of recent historical events, including allegations that Iran was providing direct material support for the al Qaeda terrorists who were responsible for 9/11.

But this is a fantasy on several counts. A “showdown” would be one-sided because Iran has no nuclear weapons and there is no proof of them attempting to acquire them. It is also very widely known that al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11. And there is no good reason to suppose that Iran was ever supporting al Qaeda, which was a creation of the CIA in order to resist the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Indeed, we have been told that al Qaeda was upset with Ahmadinejad after he challenged the official story of 9/11 during a UN speech that implied that al Qaeda was not involved, but that was a charade by a pseudo-entity, which we already knew on independent grounds.

Because Ron Paul is not an isolationist but instead a non-interventionist, who would dramatically scale back US military involvement around the world, and because Press TV features information that the CIA and the military-industrial complex would prefer that Americans never know, their motives for attacking both the candidate (Ron Paul) and the medium (Press TV) appear to have been overwhelming. Kenneth Timmerman appears to be the classic case of a Zionist apologist. To substantiate our conclusions about a man who appears to have no scruples, intellectual or journalistic, we shall discuss his most recent articles on these matters, so our readers can judge for themselves. In our view, they offer a stunning indictment of an award-winning journalist who is also a political hack.

On 9 January 2012, Kenneth Timmerman published, “Tehran TV loves Ron Paul”, which was promoted as “a special report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism”. According to Timmerman, “The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, Press TV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul”, which he attempts to substantiate on the basis of what he describes as “his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.” One of the ironies of his use of the term “propaganda” here, however, is that what he quotes from Ron Paul and from other “conspiracy theorists” who support him–to the best of our ability to sort these matters out–all appear to be true. Consider his quotes from Ron Paul:

“Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there, the Indians are there, the Pakistanis are there, the Israelis are there, the United States is there. All these countries—China has nuclear weapons! Wouldn’t it be natural that they might want a weapon? Internationally, they’d be given more respect… They have no evidence that they are working on a weapon.” Paul blasts US policy on Iran, Aug. 12, 2011.
“I think we’re looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran… Sanctions against Iran are definite steps toward a US attack.” “Iran sanctions ‘acts of war’: Ron Paul,” Dec. 31, 2011; “Ron Paul raps US hostility toward Iran,” Jan. 7, 2012.

“Iran’s leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had never mentioned any intention of wiping Israel off the map.” Quick Facts: Ron Paul on US Foreign Policy, Dec. 24, 2011.

“Iran is not a physical threat to us. They do not have capabilities. The stories you might hear about them being on the verge of a nuclear weapon is not true by our CIA and by the United Nations. They are not on the verge of it.” Quick Facts: Ron Paul on US Foreign Policy, Dec. 24, 2011.

“Who are they [Iran] going to bomb? If they had one or two bombs, they are going to bomb Israel? Israel has 300 of them! And our submarines all around there passing and everything else.” Quick Facts: Ron Paul on US Foreign Policy, Dec. 24, 2011.

“I think they’re acting in self-defense… That is a gross distortion of this debate that they’re on the verge of a nuclear weapon.” Ron Paul defends his anti-war policies, Dec. 16, 2011

“At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What is so terribly bad about this? Countries you put sanctions on, you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business. Do not get involved in these wars and bring our troops home.” Ron Paul blasts US policy on Iran, Aug. 12, 2011

The facts of the matter include that Iran is surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons; that Israel has 200-600 of them; that Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while Israel has not; that Iran allows inspectors into its facilities, but Israel does not; that Iran has not attacked any other country for more than 300 years; that Iran poses no imminent threat to any nation; and that there are no indications that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, even though it is entitled to have them, where Iran could not possibly use them for offensive purposes without running the risk of national annihilation. The greatest risks to peace in this region come not from Iran but from “our gallant ally”, Israel.

The explanation for all of this hysteria about Iran “having the bomb”, moreover, appears to be to serve as a smoke-screen to mask the real reasons the US is so eager to attack Iran. Indeed, even representatives of the American Enterprise Institute have admitted that the real issue is not nuclear weapons but Iran’s increasing political influence in the Middle East. The deeper concern, however, appears to have to do with the desire by the US nuclear energy industry to avoid competition from Iran with regard to the sale of nuclear energy fuel rods, which could cut into their profits and destroy the current US monopoly that keeps prices artificially inflated. As in so many instances of the past in which the American military intervened on behalf of US-based lobbyists, this one is only different by virtue of the magnitude of the consequences that could accrue, including the potential extinction of our own species on Earth.

Timmerman also assails Ron Paul’s criticism of the neocon agenda: “While Press TV gives some coverage to economic issues—especially any factoid suggesting that poverty is on the rise in the United States—it frequently highlights Ron Paul’s refusal to see the Islamic regime in Iran as a potential threat, his pledge to bring American troops home from overseas, and especially his anti-Israel stance”, he writes. “Press TV editors introduce a montage of Ron Paul debate clips with the ominous onscreen title, “Do you know why the Israel lobby and Neocons hate US Congressman Ron Paul?”, where these clips, like those we have previously cited, all appear to be true:

“We’ve been at war in Iran a lot longer than 1979. We started it in 1953, when we sent in a coup and installed the Shah in a coup, and the blowback’s been going on ever since 1979 because we just plain don’t mind our own business. That’s the problem,” Paul says in one of these clips. And, in another, “We don’t even have a treaty with Israel. Why do we have this automatic commitment that we’re going to send our kids and our money endlessly?”, which appear to be very good questions, but not ones that the military-industrial complex or Zionist hacks want the American people, in particular, to even consider, because they expose the soft underbelly of the corrupt policies that have been adopted by generations of US presidents, including most prominently George W. Bush and now Barack Obama.

Timmerman blasts Press TV for featuring guests he describes as “anti-Semitic” and as “conspiracy theorists”, as though criticism of the policies and the actions of the Israel government (anti-Zionism) could not be distinguished from actually discounting persons on the basis of their ethnic heritage or religious orientation (anti-Semitism). He is a master at the misuse of language for propagandistic purposes, where attacks upon those who are stating obvious truths as “anti-Semitic” becomes an all-purpose club to use in an effort to categorize and package what they have to say, in the hope that those who want to avoid “anti-Semitic rants” will not even bother to read them. Thus, he assails Mark Dankof, as a self-declared political analyst, who raises the question, “Will the Zionist lobby let him [Ron Paul] win?”

Thus, Kenneth Timmerman writes, “Dankof, who is a frequent guest on PressTV shows, explains that Ron Paul will lose because of the Jews. “If Paul should be successful early on in a couple of primaries or a couple of caucuses then I think the shrill voices in the Israeli-controlled American media will begin to become more aggressive in attacking him,” he says. Zionist lobbies demonizing Ron Paul, Dec. 3, 2011, and “Press TV touts Dankof as a ‘former U.S. Senate candidate,’ a ‘political commentator,’ or ‘political analyst’ as a way of plumping his resumé. The subterfuge is typical, and Dankof is reliably pro-Tehran, pro-Ron Paul and anti-American—lumping Barack Obama in the same basket as George W. Bush.”

According to Timmerman, “Dankof is typical of the type of rabidly anti-Israel, borderline anti-Semitic commentators Press TV relies on. Other regulars include the likes of Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA officer who regularly denounces Israeli policies as ‘manifestly evil;’ Paul Sheldon Foote, who promotes Holocaust deniers; and a bevy of left-wing, ‘anti-war’ bloggers and 9/11 ‘truthers.’ He adds more, but none of it rises to the level of objective reporting. Far from qualifying as an “investigative journalist” himself, Timmerman comes across as a neocon zealot who has a predetermined point of view, which can be summed up by the final sentence of this hit on Press TV: “To Tehran’s conspiracy-minded political leaders, Ron Paul is a natural ally”, completely discounting that Press TV is dedicated to reporting truths and Ron Paul is disclosing a lot of unpleasant ones.

On 25 January 2012, in his new, “Why doesn’t Obama ban Iranian Press TV?”, Timmerman reports, “Authorities in Britain revoked the license of the Iranian regime’s English-language global television channel known as Press TV because of evidence that it is a propaganda outlet controlled by the Iranian regime. But the Obama Administration permits the channel to operate on American soil without a license and in violation of U.S. sanctions regulations, which ban commercial transactions with Iran. It appears to be another example of Obama coddling the terrorist regime.” He encourages Obama to emulate the UK, which many view as among the most regressive nations in the world regarding the exercise of freedom of speech and of freedom of the press. Why someone who claims to be an “investigative reporter” would support such curtailments is a most interesting question.

Timmerman has not acknowledged that Press TV still has studios in the UK and that, if the US were to emulate the UK, then it would have the status quo where Press TV records some programs in the US but is compelled to broadcast them solely on the internet because they are being denied a US license. The Obama administration, however, has so far demonstrated the courage to resist these entreaties: “While other countries might not respect the right to a free press, this is something we take very seriously,” an official told Timmerman. “We like to stay true to our values.” Not to be deterred, he nevertheless continues, “But why do our values permit accommodating the actions of an illegal television entity devoted to propaganda and support for an outlaw regime that the Obama Administration itself says supports international terrorism?”

He maintains that, “The Obama Administration has continued to allow Press TV to operate unhindered in the United States, despite clear evidence that it is operating as a propaganda arm of the Iranian regime. Indeed, the State Department regularly entertains questions from Press TV reporters, and allows bloggers on its ‘DipNote’ website to plug rabid anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda with links to Press TV articles and interviews.” The same official told him, “If Press TV were to request a license to operate here in the U.S., the activities that led to having their license removed in the UK would certainly be reviewed by us,” a U.S. official said. “But for now, we cannot take a similar action because they have no license.”

Categorizing Presss TV as “a propaganda arm of the Iranian regime”, of course, is simply begging the question by taking your conclusion for granted. Press TV frequently has guests on both sides of complex issues. “In a series of email and telephone exchanges,” he continues, “officials at the Department of the Treasury refused to acknowledge whether the administration or its predecessors had granted Press TV a license to operate in the United States.” According to Timmerman, these officials explained, “We are unable to comment publicly on organizations that may or may not have received licenses from OFAC. However, we note that as an official propaganda arm of the Iranian government, Press TV has a history of fabricating news and has faced lawsuits in the UK for airing forced confessions,” a Treasury Department official said.”

Making these claims and substantiating them are entirely different matters, where it appears to us that more truth about foreign affairs can be found on Press TV and on Russia Today than can be found in The New York Times or The Washington Post. Were the US to contemplate proscribing media venues that promote racism and unlawful acts of violence, then the administration ought to consider focusing on various Zionist propaganda outlets, such as The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which was founded by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israeli military intelligence, together with Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born, pioneer of the neoconservative movement. According to its website “MEMRI is headquartered in Washington, D.C.” The difference between the two foreign media outlets, as we see it, is that MEMRI promotes anti-Islamic bigotry, while Press TV seeks to foster cohesion between East and West.

According to Timmerman, “Press TV takes the anti-American propaganda to a global level. Like the old Soviet propaganda networks, Press TV uses Americans to make the case against their own government and society. Consider the case of James Fetzer, “a prominent philosopher” who went on Press TV to comment on the violent turn of the Occupy movement in Oakland last November. He blamed the police. A professor [emeritus] at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, Fetzer said, ‘We are seeing the increase in militarization of the police forces throughout the United States and that is a very bad tendency that has been taking place since 9/11. We see the rich getting richer and the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. This gap has been widening since the administration of Ronald Reagan,’ Fetzer said.”

Timmerman continues, “He [Fetzer] went on: ‘What they are doing, the politicians are ignoring the needs of the average American and the working families. We have had increasing foreclosures, and unemployment is seen as the tip of an iceberg resistance to the corruption of politics in America… I believe this movement is not going to go away, and that what we are seeing is the real face of the police state of America has become.’ So because it operates illegally in violation of the law, the U.S. will take no action. This might be enough for administration lawyers, but it defies common sense.” Except that nothing he quotes from Fetzer appears to be false; on the contrary, his remarks, no doubt unsurprisingly, are accurate and to the point. Notice how Timmerman does not even attempt to refute what he says, but counts on his readers preconceptions to take for granted that Fetzer is wrong and, by inference, that Timmerman is right.

After assailing other source, Timmerman returns to his new favorite target of attack: “As it turns out, James H. Fetzer is indeed well-known—as a conspiracy theorist. In a Wikipedia entry tagged by editors as “an autobiography,” Fetzer is described as ‘a well-known conspiracy theorist,’ who has written extensively on the JFK assassination, 9/11, and the plane crash that killed U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone. Fetzer claims, for example, that the film footage taken of the aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 was “video fakery” caused by “holographic projects (sic), because the high-speed crash was ‘in violation of Newton’s laws’ of physics.” While he is accurate in reporting those views, he ignores the mountain of evidence that substantiates them. Most of us would consider violations of inviolable laws of physics as a good reason to think something is wrong with those videos, but not this intrepid journalist!

Once again, he offers no reason to dispute Fetzer’s findings, but simply leaves it up to his audience to reject them based upon their preconceptions. If Timmerman really were an investigative journalist, then he ought to be investigating whether what Fetzer has reported is or is not true. He should explain what Fetzer claims and why he claims it and then offer his critique. That he does not do this offers powerful proof that he is not an “investigative reporter” but a propaganda artist who uses his pretense of being such to conceal his own disinformation operation. From this point of view, Timmerman’s modus operandi becomes apparent.

He continues, “His own website highlights his book, The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America. A YouTube video shows Fetzer arguing that Senator Wellstone was assassinated, not killed by accident in a plane crash. After a federal judge in District Court in New York issued a finding last December that Iran shared responsibility with al Qaeda” for the 9/11 attacks, Press TV naturally turned to Fetzer for comment. Calling the ruling ‘preposterous,’ he said he knew who was responsible for the attacks: Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad. ‘Multiple investigations by independent journalists have revealed that Israel—the Mossad—played a key role in 9/11,’ Fetzer said. ‘Look up “the dancing Israelis.” Look up ‘urban moving systems.” Look up “CITS” [which should be “ICTS”] and you’ll find ample indication that Israel was profoundly involved in 9/11.” Kenneth Timmerman does not seem to care that Fetzer is right: if he were to follow the leads Fetzer provides, he would confront evidence that refutes his own position.

In his slanted history of Press TV, Timmerman makes allegations that would make an honest American reporter cringe. He writes, for example, “While Press TV made some effort in its U.S. programming to invite guests who weren’t always fans of the Iranian regime, all pretense of its propaganda aims disappeared in May 2009, just before the stolen elections that gave Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term in office. That was when a group of Ahmadinejad supporters raided the petty cash desk at Press TV’s Tehran headquarters and used the money to support Ahmadinejad’s election campaign, according to Press TV insiders who subsequently left or were forced to leave the network.”

However the is abundant evidence that in fact Ahmedinaejad won the Iranian elections fair and square. As The Guardian appropriately reported at the time:

“The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin – greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.

“While western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead. . . The breadth of Ahmadinejad’s support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasised his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favoured Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.

“Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.”

But the US elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 were veritable paradigms of stolen elections, which have been extensively documented by Brad Freedman, Bob Fitrakis, and many others. How he can say these things with a straight face is beyond us. He also alleges that “Press TV has used a number of subterfuges to skirt the U.S. sanctions on commercial transactions with Iran.” But the fact of the matter appears to be that, while Press TV has worked through production companies operating here, which in turn have hired crew, correspondents, and producers, what’s wrong with that? Unless you beg the question, as Timmerman does, by treating Press TV as a propaganda medium—a claim that he has done next to nothing to substantiate—there is no good reason not to admire how it has done its best to adapt itself to an inhospitable business environment.

Timmerman cites a list of journalists and producers who have lent a hand, which includes Former Atlantic Television News (ATN) correspondent Colin Campbell, who has questioned US officials on its behalf. But what’s wrong with that? And if ATN Productions Ltd. “has seven reporters currently registered with the Senate Press Gallery: Nicholas Ewing, Affra Khallash, Taleb Khallash, Zina Khallash, Dirik Rice, Mohamed Said Ouafi, and Firas Tuma. So the company is registered in Denmark and produces the weekly magazine show ‘American Dream,’ hosted by an American, Nisa Islam”. What’s wrong with that? Timmerman is using the kinds of techniques that were used by the Bush/Cheney administration to demonize Iraq and Saddam Hussein to demonize Iran and Press TV.

Timmerman appears to violate journalistic ethics in several ways by identifying the location at which ATN operates at “production studios located on K Street in downtown Washington, D.C.” What does he expect: an angry mob of neo-cons should converge on the building and tear it apart? Even worse, he identifies businessmen who are pursuing legitimate practices by observing that, “Press TV also contracts with American Press and TV Services (APTVS), an outfit run by Egyptian nationals Gamal Hassanein and Samir Ezeldin. Like ATN, they hire producers and camera crews to film events and conduct interviews at Press TV’s request.” By giving links to their facebook pages, this comes across as targeting individuals for political purposes, which we believe warrants an investigation of the journalistic ethics of Kenneth Timmerman. Since they are also Egyptian, it smacks of racism and discrimination. This is a form of incitement on a par with the inflammatory rhetoric of the past that led to lynching and other crimes.

That is most unlikely to come from AIM, which appears to be an obvious case of neo-con propaganda, especially where one covert source cites and compliments another. Indeed, Timmerman even acknowledges that APTVS and ATN are not even part of Press TV: “Although APTVS and ATN are not part of Press TV, they produce ‘works for hire’ for Press TV. Should OFAC decide to enforce the law, this could be construed to mean that they are engaging in unlicensed commercial transactions with Iran.” In his on-going efforts to ban Press TV, Timmerman does not acknowledge, much less dismiss, the benefits to the American public and to the world at larger of hearing the other side of the question. US citizens in the past have shown themselves all too willing to accept what their government tells them. With nuclear annihilation in the offering, Americans need to be exposed to more points of view, not less.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and has made hundreds of appearances on radio and television, including Press TV.

Joshua Blakeney is a graduate student at the University of Lethbridge, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Staff Writer at Veterans Today, who has made a number of recent appearances on Press TV.

Friday, January 27, 2012

After publishing "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then", I encountered the remarkable work of Dr. Ralph Cinque, who had seen something that no one else had noticed in nearly 50 years of study on the assassination of JFK, namely: that, in relation to the long-standing debate over the identity of the man in the doorway in the famous Altgens photograph, usually referred to as "Doorway Man", between Lee Oswald, the accused assassin of JFK, and Billy Lovelady, a co-worker who looked a great deal like him, it is not the FACES in the Altgens that matter, but their SHIRTS! I had noticed that the face of a figure in the Altgens had been obfuscated, which led me to infer that this must be Oswald, but his detailed and painstaking analysis of the differences between the shirt that Doorway Man was wearing and the shirts that Oswald and Lovelady were wearing persuaded me that he was right and that, unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's shirt, the man in the doorway was Lee.

In the Altgens, you can see (1) the through-and-through hole in the windshield; (2) Doorway Man; (3) the broom-closet window of a uranium mining company that was a CIA asset, from which three shots appear to have been fired; and (4) the open door of the LBJ security detail, suggesting prior knowledge of what was to come. The man to the left of Doorway Man, wearing a fedora, resembles Jack Ruby; while the face and shirt of another figure to DM's left/front (right/front facing him) have been obfuscated or removed. A debate of long-standing has endured over whether DM was Lee Oswald or his co-worker, Billy Lovelady. We believe the face was "tweaked" or even moved to Doorway Man to obfuscate Oswald's presence, but the shirts tell the tale.

For those who review our more extensive study and look at all the evidence, if they scroll down to "Once more, with feeling!", where we have Doorway Man on the left and Lovelady on the right, where above Doorway Man is Oswald, I think anyone can see that the shirt on Doorway Man has been "touched up" but still does not resemble the checkered shirt on Lovelady; and it is obvious that Doorway Man is NOT wearing the striped shirt he (Lovelady) told the FBI he was wearing that day. But it very strongly resembles the shirt on Oswald, which was loose-fitting like Doorway Man and unlike Lovelady in either shirt. Lee tugged at the neck of his shirt, which gave it a "vee" like appearance, which is more visible in some photographs than in others. Lovelady's has no "vee".

Here is a diagrammatic summary of the witness reports that I take to be credible. There are lots of inconsistencies in the record, where some witnesses were intimidated, others had their testimony changed, and still others were never called at all. While we all know that there can be endless debate about exactly who said what when, these are the three that I take to be accurate reports, where I have overlaid the witness reports of his locations on a drawing from Gerald Posner's CASE CLOSED (1992):

We also have the handwritten and typed notes of Detective Will Fritz interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, which reflect that he told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", which I believe for several reasons, including that Lee was working for the FBI as an informant and had a history with ONI and the CIA, where I am inclined to believe that he expected he was going to be exonerated. During his interview, he also told Fritz, when shown one of the backyard photographs, that it was his face on someone else's body. Jim Marrs and I have written about this in "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald", which appears on Veterans Today with other recent JFK articles of mine.

In addition, in relation to the time line, an excellent, concise post has appeared by Richard Hocking:

Posted Yesterday, 04:14 PM

"From a Timeline perspective, it was possible for Oswald to be on the
front steps at the time of the shooting (as he told Fritz). Carolyn
Arnold's interview with Anthony Summers (1978) places Oswald behind
the double doors at the entrance as late as 12:25. The next sighting
in the testimony is Baker and Truly in the 2nd floor lunch room at
about 12:31:30. That leaves open the possibility that Oswald could
have been on the steps at the time of the shooting and then gone
inside after the shots were fired.

"On a side note, Oswald said he was on the steps with Shelley. That
raises several interesting points:

1. If Oswald was not on the steps, how did he know where Shelley was?
Oswald may have seen him there at 12:25, but that is no guarantee that
Shelley would have stayed there.

2. Oswald is giving Fritz information that can be cross-checked with
another witness. He is now relying on Shelley to provide verification
for his alibi at the time of the shooting. Why would Oswald put
himself in this position unless he thought Shelley would back him up?

If, otoh, Oswald was making up a story, why not say he was behind
everyone on the steps where no one noticed him? That would have
eliminated the possibility of being contradicted by another witness."

Finally, when I learned about the Fritz interrogation notes--which had actually been released by the ARRB back in 1997 but which I had only discovered a few months ago--I took another look at the Altgens and discovered that the face of the man to his left/front (right/front, viewing the photograph) had been obliterated, I inferred that this must have been Oswald. That was my position when Ralph and I came into contact. When, in the course of our exchange, I discovered that THE SHIRT AS WELL AS THE FACE of the other man had been obliterated it was obvious that there had to have been features of the shirt that need to be obscured, which led me to reconsider my position. As he and I began discussing his research on the shirts, I realized that he had noticed something that no one else had noticed before him--that the shirts, not the faces, were the key to resolving the issue.

As we all know, virtually nothing about the assassination can be known with certainty. It is almost always a matter of probabilities and likelihoods. When you put together the timeline with what Lee told Fritz (about being out front with Bill Shelly), given Richard Hocking's observations, especially in light of the obfuscation of the Altgens, the likelihood that he was there is the reason why the had to change the photograph becomes very strong. Why else, after all, would they have bothered with a crowd shot--unless someone was there who should not have been, where the only person who fits that bill is Lee Harvey Oswald. So the key to appraising this situation is to ask, "What is the probability of altering this photo and obfuscating images if Oswald had not been there?" Approximately zero.

The features that Ralph has identified in the style, the lapel, the lay, the fit, and the buttons have convinced me that he is right and that the man in the doorway IS wearing Oswald's shirt. Lovelady, of course, turned out to have a checkered shirt and a vertically striped shirt, both of which were rather distinctive. The complementary argument that I have advanced is that Doorway Man is also NOT wearing Lovelady's checkered shirt, much less his vertically striped shirt, which may have been on Lovelady but cannot have been on Doorway Man. DM's shirt has a rather loose fit and unusual features. Oswald's shirt has a rather loose fit and unusual features. Lovelady's shirt fits snugly and has no unusual features--other than its pattern. So they had to try to make Oswald's shirt look more like Lovelady's, but did so with only limited success, which was how Ralph could detect their differences and fashion his argument. Others may disagree, but he has convinced me.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is the editor of Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003).

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

In “USA: Massive Transports of Military Equipment”, Christof Lehmann, the first author, has reported the stunning videos taken by Mr. Andrew Tuckman on 19 January 2012, who began filming this after a dozen or so train cars went by on a stretch of track south of Santa Cruz, California. "Where are the military vehicles going? Why are they being shipped? What could this possibly be for? Barack Obama, what are you up to? We want answers….”

James Fetzer, the second author, contacted an associate with extensive military experience, who identified them as “woodland camouflage M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles with a few HEMTT refueling trucks. They don't appear to have been modernized since they would have been repainted TAN. They may be going to an exercise for the California National Guard--or worse going into STORAGE because the U.S. Army has gone STUPID and is pissing away its cross-country maneuver war-fighting powers in favor of foot-slogging victims with hand weapons from wheeled trucks, which are easily blown up by land mines on roads/trails.”

Christof replied that, “from a soldier’s perspective I can follow your reasoning, of course. There are some modifications I would like you to consider, however -- which is based on what we are getting via Russian Intelligence Chatter -- that the US is modifying its tank warfare tactics to adopt a kind of Blitzkrieg approach such as the Germans were using. For that, of course, you need superior tanks and a vast quantity of armored vehicles – both tanks and armored personnel carriers with reasonable fighting ability. All that equipment is perfect for that.”

James asked, “Where do you and Russian intel believe they are going to be used? I would not rule that out”, and he replied, “They didn´t indicate where, other than hinting that Syria and Iran were the probable targets.” According to a reliable source within the European NATO admiralty, moreover, it would not be entirely off target to state that NATO could use Libya as a staging area for an attack on Syria or Iran, where a confrontation with Iran probably would include the use of neutron weapons after the initial confrontational stages after initial "provocations"-–no doubt, including a “false flag” attack and an escalation by NATO--neutron weapons would be most likely used to take out both the Iranian Navy and Iran’s missile capabilities.

The second and third authors have written about the use of the USS Vincennes as an ideal “false flag” target because, on 3 July 1988, the Vincennes had shot down Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf, killing all of the 290 civilian passengers on board, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. This would be an ideal vessel for the staged provocation as it could be easily sold to the world as having been Iranian retribution for the 1988 downing of Flight 655, where the evident lack of motive for Iran to provoke the US and Israeli military titans would be replaced by the perceived goal of revenge. No one would stop to ask themselves why Iran would thereby invite its own national annihilation.

The latest intel that I have received is that the USS Vincennes, far from having been scrapped, has been in the Mediterranean Sea and lobbing shells to test the “Iron Dome” the US has been constructing to save Israel from destruction when the waves of missiles are directed her way after an assault on Iran! As The New York Times (17 January 2012) has recently reported, the major joint US/Israeli op that had been planned has subsequently been cancelled, where some have inferred that it was because they could no longer target the Vincennes. My latest info is that she has been replaced by the USS Enterprise, an aging nuclear-powered carrier that has suffered the effects of long-term radiation exposure to its steel and appears to be the replacement target of choice.

The use of a neutron weapon might initially seem implausible but, during a long interview with Christopher Busby, “New Bombs and War Crimes in Fallujah”, the second author learned that the epidemic of serious birth defects he was studying in Fallujah were not caused by exposure to depleted uranium, as everyone had up to that point expected, but by exposure to enriched uranium, which appears to have come from a new kind of neutron bomb, which may even have been used to convert the Twin Towers from 500,000 tons of steel and concrete into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. So we have evidence that the weapon to which the admiral referred does exist.

Attacks on the nuclear energy plants in Iran—of which there appear to be as many as eighty (80) distributed across the country—has been estimated to bring about 1,000,000 deaths of Iranians outright, with another 35,000,000 premature deaths expected as the cloud of contamination sweeps across Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India--and may contaminate all of Earth. In “5 minutes to the self-immolation of the Israeli Empire”, as the author explains, the Zionists really sincerely believe Israel has the right to all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates River in Iraq. “They believe they have the right to destroy every Muslim nation that would say ‘No’ to Zionist insanity. Why should America suffer self-immolation because Israel thinks national suicide just like at Masada is a wonderful idea?”

Some of Iran's principal nuclear sites

American politicians appear to be following suit. GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rich Santorum, for example, have called for a “first strike” against Iran, even though there is no hard evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapons or any intention of developing them. They appear to be massively ignorant of history, since Iran has not attacked any other nation in 300 years. Not only that, but Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allowed IAEA inspectors into its facilities. Israel, by comparison, has 200-600 nuclear bombs, has not signed the NPT, and will not allow inspectors into its facilities.

Were either of these candidates successful in reaching the nation’s highest office, they would take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. But according to the Constitution, treaties have the same status under the law as the Constitution itself. These candidates appear to be oblivious of the consideration that the Hague Convention of 1899, the Kellogg-Briand Peace Treaty of 1928, and even the UN Charter obligate the US to the peaceful resolution of disputes with other countries, where a “first strike” is only permissible in response to an “imminent threat”. No one believes, even remotely, that Iran represents an imminent threat. By endorsing a first strike, therefore, these candidates are demonstrating their willingness to violate the Constitution and the oath of office they would have sworn to uphold.

In the light of recent reports (1) of the re-deployment of 12,000 US troops from Malta to Libya, reported in an article by Cynthia McKinney, (2) the ongoing covert war against Syria by NATO as well as against Iran, (3) the tense military situation between NATO countries, Syria, Iran, and (4) recent messages about Russian and Chinese military being on alert, we have considered it to be incumbent upon us to publish the videos of military equipment transportation and we ask for citizens of NATO countries to report any significant troops movements in any NATO country to nsnbc at this address: nsnbc.wordpress(at)gmail.com

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Beverly Milton-Edwards is Professor in the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy at Queen’s University Belfast. Steven Farrell, who has dual British-Irish citizenship, is Middle East Correspondent for The New York Times.

Hamas is about the militant Palestinian group which was democratically elected to run the Palestinian Authority in 2006. The main value of the book is the rich context it provides regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which is totally absent from the mainstream media. Hamas clearly documents the role Israel played in promoting the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in Palestine. The book also emphasizes the essential role foreign financial assistance plays in perpetuating this war – with the US heavily backing Israel and other Islamic states backing occupied Palestine.

According to Milton-Edwards and Farrell, Israel’s motives in backing the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine were identical to those of the US in Afghanistan and Anwar Sadat in Egypt. In all cases, the goal of supporting the Islamic fundamentalism was to counter the secular Arab leftists and nationalists who controlled most Middle East states prior to 1967. The US and its allies had enormous concerns that that the leaders in power would form a single Arab economic or political block that would thwart US corporate and strategic interests.

Milton-Edwards and Farrell trace the origins of Hamas to the decision by the Muslim Brotherhood to open offices in Palestine in the 1940s, when it was still under the British Mandate. As a condition of their World War I defeat, the old Ottoman (Turkish) empire was divided up among European powers. In 1947 Britain surrendered control of Palestine, and the UN partitioned it into Jewish and Palestinian Arab states. Outraged that Jews, who represented on 32% of the population were awarded 56% of Palestine, in 1949 Syria, Egypt and Jordan joined with Palestinian jihadists, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, in declaring war on Israel.

In the resulting settlement, Palestinian Arabs lost even more territory, forcing 726,000 refugees to flee to neighboring states. Gaza, to the west of Israel, came under Egyptian control. Jordan, to Israel’s east, assumed control of the West Bank. The king of Jordan, an autocratic totalitarian ruler, immediately closed the West Bank offices of the Muslim Brotherhood and placed their members under close police surveillance.

Hamas Green Flags

In the 1967 six day war, Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked Israel and were once again defeated. The West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli military occupation, while Israel banned the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and forced Yasar Arafat and other PLO leaders to flee into exile.

Israel Turns a Blind Eye to Mijamma Violence

Prior to 1973, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood saw its primary role as performing charitable works and speaking out against the liberal Westernized culture Palestinian youth brought back when they went to university in Egypt. In 1973 they formed a new organization Al-Mijamma ‘al-Islami (The Islamic Center), under the leadership of a charismatic wheelchair bound cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Mijamma’s ultimate goal was to reclaim Palestinian land and homes Israel had seized in 1947 and 1967. However they felt the first step in building a militant resistance organization was to re-establish Palestine as an Islamic society. Thus despite considerable anti-Israeli rhetoric, their main focus was on islamization, which they approached by teaching, preaching and setting up community institutions to provide food and other social services to impoverished Palestinian families.

Initially their political attacks (demonstrations, street ambushes, attacks on homes and offices) were limited to so-called Israeli “collaborators” and individuals linked with the PLO and other secular and leftist groups and institutions. This included teaching and medical associations. However once they assumed control of the Islamic University of Gaza in 1973, they began harassing and expelling female students who refused to wear Islamic dress, as well as beating up men who spoke out against these activities.

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin

Israel, which governed both the West Bank and Gaza after 1967, turned a blind eye to this lawless violence. They only provided direct financial aid to the Islamic Academy in Hebron, where many of Hamas’s military leaders would receive their training. Yet in 1978 Israel granted official recognition to Mijamma, allowing it to meet openly and publicly, at a time when all other Palestinian parties were banned as illegal terrorist organizations.

The Birth of Hamas

During the 1987 insurrection known as the Intifada, Mujamma renamed itself Hamas. Their founding document, which disputes Israel’s right to establish a religious state on Palestinian territory, is full of references to common anti-Semitic conspiracies. In addition to quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a proven forgery), it blames “the Jews” for the French revolution, the Communist revolution and secret societies like the Freemasons, Rotary Club and Lions.

Nevertheless despite their full participation alongside the PLO in the Intifada, Israel continued to allow foreign money to flow freely to Hamas, while they continued to freeze PLO assets. Likewise Israel allowed Hamas to keep their schools open in Gaza, while they force West Bank Palestinian schools to close.

Victims of Operation Castlead

In 1990, Israel finally began cracking down on Hamas, following the murder of two Israeli soldiers. Their leader Sheikh Hassan was arrested, tried and imprisoned. Three years later, Israel illegally (under international law) deported 400 Hamas members, following the kidnapping of an Israeli border guard.

Meanwhile the PLO, Hamas’s rival, made the tragic mistake of endorsing Sadam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991. This resulted in the suspension of all aid the PLO previously received from wealthy Gulf oil states.

Why the PLO Abandoned Armed Struggle

Hamas makes it strikingly clear that money and public opinion polls have influenced Palestine Liberation Army (PLO) and Hamas policies far more than lofty political goals. The primary reason the PLO abandoned their pledge, in 1993, to liberate Palestine through armed struggle was that they were nearly bankrupt with the loss of their Gulf donors. Their decision to negotiate a peace with Israel made them enormously unpopular with one million Gazan refugees. Still intent on returning to the lands they had lost in Israel, they had no interest whatsoever in creating a Palestinian state.

Bulldozing Palestinian homes

The response from Hamas was to issue a fatwa (death sentence issued by Islamic religious leaders) against the Fatah-led PLO. Determined to derail the negotiations, they also launched a massive campaign of violence, incorporating or the first time a new tactic known as “martyrdom” (i.e. suicide) bombings. Each martyrdom bombing resulted in a payment of approximately $25,000 to the suicide bomber’s family, financed mainly by Saddam Hussein and Saudi Arabia.

The Creation of the Palestinian Authority

The 1993 negotiated settlement, known as the Oslo Accords, granted the West Bank and Gaza limited autonomy under Israeli military control. It also created the Palestinian Authority (PA), a shrewd move the US and Israel employed to split and crush the Palestinian resistance. By making the Palestinian leadership the civil authority, they shifted much popular anger away from Israel and towards the PLO.
Arafat and the PLO leadership returned from exile to run the Palestinian Authority (PA). Owing to a continuing embargo by Gulf donors, Arafat had to lay off hundreds of public sector workers and slash social services to prevent a total meltdown of the Palestinian economy.

Demolished Palestinian homes

Israel, meanwhile, made Arafat responsible for controlling Hamas militants. His solution was to put thousands of them in prison and torture them. There were numerous reports of prisoners being beaten, forced to shave their beards and sodomized with coke bottles. Moreover PA security services routinely blackmailed families, with offers to release prisoners in return for bribes of $10,000 or more. All this occurred as Israel was continuing to destroy Palestinian homes and olive trees to build more Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

The Second Intifada

In 2000, Palestinian anger at their extreme poverty and repression boiled over in armed insurrection, the second Intifada. In 2002, the Saudis put forward a peace proposal which would have normalized Israel’s relations with the Arab world in return for their withdrawal from the occupied territories. As before Hamas, which still demanded the right of return (to their homelands in Israel) for all exiled Palestinians, tried to derail peace negotiations with a wave of sniper attacks and car and suicide bombings. These were directed against the PLO security services, Jewish settlers in Palestine and civilians inside Israel. Instead of retaliating against Hamas, Israel punished Arafat by sending tanks into the West Bank to bombard his headquarters, commencing a military siege that kept him prisoner until he died in 2004.

Hamas Enters Electoral Politics

Hamas boycotted the January 2005 presidential elections, giving the Fatah candidate Mahmoud Abbas an easy victory. In May 2005, the Hamas leadership made a controversial decision to pursue direct political power by standing candidates in Gaza and West Bank local body elections. They did so in parallel with militant attacks on Israel. Following Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza in August 2005, this included Qassam rocket attacks on Israeli border towns.

Operation Castlead

Hamas never expected to win the parliamentary elections in January 2006, a success Milton-Edwards and Farrell attribute to widespread disgust, both in the West Bank and Gaza, with Fatah/PLO corruption and inefficiency. Refusing to recognize the Hamas victory, Mahmood Abbas installed his own non-elected parliament in the West Bank. He also refused to relinquish Fatah-controlled security posts to the new Hamas government. Israel, meanwhile, froze funds needed to pay PA officials in Gaza. When Europe and the US also froze Palestinian developmental assistance, Hamas had no choice but to turn to Iran for training, weapons and financial aid.

The Failed CIA Coup

After a brief experiment with a “unity” government, in which Fatah and Hamas ruled jointly, the CIA and Abbas launched an 18 month military coup, determined to dislodge Hamas from power in Gaza. In June 2006, Hamas came out the victor, employing 16,000 fighters to force 70,000 CIA-backed members of Abbas’ Preventive Security Organization to flee Gaza.

Hamas Drops in the Opinion Polls

By June 2008, their popularity waning owning to brutal sanctions and shortages of food, medicine and other necessities, Hamas was in the exact same situation as Fatah in 1993. In desperation they agreed to a temporary ceasefire (ending suicide bombings and Qassam rocket attacks), on condition Israel end their embargo. Hamas honored the ceasefire for six months, despite Israel’s failure to end their economic blockade. In December 2008, Hamas broke the ceasefire by firing rockets into Israel.

Cleaning Up Castlead

The book ends with a description of Operation Castlead, which Israel launched against Gaza in retaliation. Castlead destroyed or damaged nearly every Palestinian security installation, killed 1,300 Palestinians (including 900 civilians) and destroyed hundreds of homes and business institutions.

Milton-Edward’s and Farrell’s chronology ends here. The book finishes with the ironic observation that while Castlead was a military victory of sorts for Israel, it had the perverse effect of restoring Gazan residents’ confidence in Hamas. At the end of 2008, they were near an all time high in public opinion polls

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Several warnings of an imminent “false flag” attack by the Israeli-influenced United States on one of its own warships, which will be attributed to Iran, have been reported by several reliable sources. In recent years “false-flag” terrorism has been utilized multiple times by US and Israeli political actors to provide pretexts for otherwise unjustifiable, anti-Islamic military excursions. The plan is to justify an all-out assault on Iran based upon a new fabricated “Pearl Harbor”.

Israel is the primary motivator behind the attempts to destabilize Iran. US traditional foreign policy was one of attempting to foster stability in the Middle East for oil markets. The Zionist impulse, conversely, is to destabilize all potential regional hegemons and carve the Middle East up into ethno-religious statelets. Thus, since the fraudulent events of 9/11, we’ve seen a policy of Middle East disintegration being pursued by Israeli-influenced American politicians. Indeed, recently released CIA memos reveal that Mossad agents have been posing as CIA agents and conscripting anti-Iranian terrorists.

Former Israeli intelligence officer, Avi Perry, startlingly wrote in a January 9th Jerusalem Post article of a forthcoming “ ‘Pearl Harbor’ scenario, in which Iran [will] launch…a “surprise” attack on the US navy,” giving the US “the perfect rationalization to finish them [Iran] off.” Tellingly, Perry chose to put the word “surprise” in quotation marks. Is Perry telling us something?
Perry asserts: “[an] Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime.” However, Perry identifies “a US aircraft carrier” as the likely target of this imagined Iranian attack.

USS Vincennes returns to San Diego (October 1988)

We beg to differ. There are major indications that the vessel of choice is to be the USS Vincennes. The fourth USS Vincennes (CG-49) is a US Navy Ticonderoga class Aegis guided missile cruiser. On July 3, 1988, the ship shot down Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 civilian passengers on board, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children.

This would be an ideal vessel for the staged provocation as it could be easily sold to the world as having been Iranian retribution for the 1988 downing of Flight 655. That way the evident lack of motive for Iran to provoke the US and Israeli military titans will be replaced by a perceived “motive.” No one will stop to ask themselves why Iran would thereby invite its own national annihilation.

If we were to believe the Wikipedia version of history, the Vincennes has already been scrapped. The Wikipedia article for the Vincennes states, “The Vincennes was completely scrapped by 23 November 2011.” If that were true it could not be used as the target of this “false-flag” attack. Yet we have photographic and testimonial evidence suggesting otherwise.

The USS Vincennes afloat in Puget Sound. The ship has an orange hue.

It cannot have been "completely scrapped" and still be afloat in Puget Sound.

A reliable source interviewed by one of us has brought us up to speed on the latest developments:

“We now know what that INACTIVE Ticonderoga class AEGIS missile cruiser got towed out of here under cover of darkness for. It’ll likely be the sacrificial lamb that starts the war with Iran….

“Why else would they move it when all the rest sit at a buoy here for months before they finally leave to be sunk?

“I told this to a former 9/11 Truth person back when that ship got moved that it was likely to be used for a FALSE FLAG attack. Well, we’ll soon see if I was right about this one.”

Since the ship left Puget Sound in the dead of night about two months ago, it’s most probable location today is at the 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain for safe keeping until the time comes for its deployment. The ship would have been refurbished and repainted and provided with remote control capabilities.
“That is the only location in the region outside of Haifa Harbor where she could probably be at least partially concealed by cocooning the superstructure to make it less obvious who she is. Meanwhile, the US Navy is compiling a list of casualties based upon deceased sailors, very much as was the case on 9/11,” we were advised.

Former Israeli false-flag attacks, such as on the USS Liberty in 1967, and the Argentine attacks in 1992 and in 1994, demonstrate Israel’s willingness to attack US targets, on the one hand, and its own people, on the other. It’s highly probable that, having shipped the Vincennes into an acceptable location, that the Mossad, which has also been implicated in the events of 9/11, would do the rest of the dirty work. Or the United States, which has become Israel’s lackey, might blow up one of its own ships, which would be a literal and a figurative sign of how low the US has sunk.

“As a Marine Corps officer, I swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic”, Jim Fetzer observes. “Neither I nor any other officer I know ever swore allegiance to the State of Israel. Our leaders are not only betraying our own Constitution but have turned our nation into a servant of an unworthy, brutal and tyrannical master, who couldn’t care less about the best interests of American citizens–and our own leaders not only permit this to happen but actually promote it.”

In light of recent “deep political events” in Iran, including the recent murder of Iranian nuclear physicist Professor Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, it would not be surprising if the US and Israel were to raise the ante by implementing a fraudulent trigger incident, which may very well ignite World War III.

Because of the pervasiveness of US-Israeli deceptions, an increasing number of public intellectuals are awakening to the prospect of these fraudulent events BEFORE THEY HAPPEN, as appears to be the case with this initiative. We can’t be certain about all of this, because we are on the outside, looking in. Perhaps the USS Vincennes actually has been scrapped. But on this point the world can rest assured: they haven’t scrapped the plan!

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Joshua Blakeney is a graduate student at the University of Lethbridge, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Staff Writer at Veterans Today.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

NOTE: This serves as a sequel to my interview with Leuren Moret and Christopher Busby on "The Real Deal", which was published as "New bombs and war crimes in Fallujah", Veterans Today (3 November 2011).

Doctors and residents blame US weapons for catastrophic levels of birth defects in Fallujah's newborns.

Dahr Jamail (6 January 2012)

Congenital abnormalities have mushroomed in the wake of devastating US sieges in Fallujah in 2004 [EPA]

Fallujah, Iraq - While the US military has formally withdrawn from Iraq, doctors and residents of Fallujah are blaming weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorous used during two devastating US attacks on Fallujah in 2004 for what are being described as "catastrophic" levels of birth defects and abnormalities.

Dr Samira Alani, a paediatric specialist at Fallujah General Hospital, has taken a personal interest in investigating an explosion of congenital abnormalities that have mushroomed in the wake of the US sieges since 2005.

"We have all kinds of defects now, ranging from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities, both in numbers you cannot imagine," Alani told Al Jazeera at her office in the hospital, while showing countless photos of shocking birth defects.

As of December 21, Alani, who has worked at the hospital since 1997, told Al Jazeera she had personally logged 677 cases of birth defects since October 2009. Just eight days later when Al Jazeera visited the city on December 29, that number had already risen to 699.

"There are not even medical terms to describe some of these conditions because we've never seen them until now," she said. "So when I describe it all I can do is describe the physical defects, but I'm unable to provide a medical term."

'Incompatible with life'

Most of these babies in Fallujah die within 20 to 30 minutes after being born, but not all.

Four-year-old Abdul Jaleel Mohammed was born in October 2007. His clinical diagnosis includes dilation of two heart ventricles, and a growth on his lower back that doctors have not been able to remove.

Four-year-old Abdul Jaleel Mohammed has birth defects and health problems that his family blames on depleted uranium exposure from the 2004 US military attacks on Fallujah [Dahr Jamail/Al Jazeera]

Abdul has trouble controlling his muscles, struggles to walk, cannot control his bladder, and weakens easily. Doctors told his father, Mohamed Jaleel Abdul Rahim, that his son has severe nervous system problems, and could develop fluid build-up in his brain as he ages, which could prove fatal.

"This is the first instance of something like this in all our family," Rahim told Al Jazeera. "We lived in an area that was heavily bombed by the Americans in 2004, and a missile landed right in front of our home. What else could cause these health problems besides this?"

Dr Alani told Al Jazeera that in the vast majority of cases she has documented, the family had no prior history of congenital abnormalities.

Alani showed Al Jazeera hundreds of photos of babies born with cleft palates, elongated heads, a baby born with one eye in the centre of its face, overgrown limbs, short limbs, and malformed ears, noses and spines.

She told Al Jazeera of cases of "thanatophoric dysplasia", an abnormality in bones and the thoracic cage that "render the newborn incompatible with life".

Rahim said many of his relatives that have had babies after 2004 are having problems as well.

"One of them was born and looks like a fish," Rahim said. "I also personally know of at least three other families who live near us who have these problems also."

For now, the family is worried how Abdul will fare in school when he is enrolled next year. Maloud Ahmed Jassim, Abdul's grandfather, added, "We've seen so many miscarriages happen, and we don't know why."

"The growth on his back is so sensitive and painful for him," Rahim said. "What will happen in school?"

Jassim is angered by a lack of thorough investigations into the health crisis.

"Why is the government not investigating this," he asked. "Western media seem interested, but neither our local media nor the government are. Why not?"

In April 2011, Iraqi lawmakers debated whether the US attacks on the city constituted genocide. Resolutions that called for international prosecution, however, went nowhere.

Scientific proof

Alani, along with Dr Christopher Busby, a British scientist and activist who has carried out research into the risks of radioactive pollution, collected hair samples from 25 parents of families with children who have birth defects and sent them to a laboratory in Germany for analysis.

Alani and Busby, along with other doctors and researchers, published a study in September 2011 from data obtained by analysing the hair samples, as well as soil and water samples from the city.

Mercury, Uranium, Bizmuth and other trace elements were found.

The report's conclusion states:

"Whilst caution must be exercised about ruling out other possibilities, because none of the elements found in excess are reported to cause congenital diseases and cancer except Uranium, these findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases. Questions are thus raised about the characteristics and composition of weapons now being deployed in modern battlefields."

"As doctors, we know Mercury, Uranium and Bismuth can contribute to the development of congenital abnormalities, and we think it could be related to the use of prohibited weapons by the Americans during these battles," Alani said.

"Findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases," says a recent scientific report on the incidence of birth defects in Fallujah [Dr Samira Alani]

"I made this link to a coroner's inquest in the West Midlands into the death of a Gulf War One veteran... and a coroner's jury accepted my evidence," he told Al Jazeera.

"It's been found by a coroner's court that cancer was caused by an exposure to depleted uranium," Busby added, "In the last 10 years, research has emerged that has made it quite clear that uranium is one of the most dangerous substances known to man, certainly in the form that it takes when used in these wars."

In July 2010, Busby released a study that showed a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in Fallujah since the 2004 attacks. The report also showed the sex ratio had declined from normal to 86 boys to 100 girls, together with a spread of diseases indicative of genetic damage similar to but of far greater incidence than Hiroshima.

Dr Alani visited Japan recently, where she met with Japanese doctors who study birth defect rates they believe related to radiation from the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

She was told birth defect incidence rates there are between 1-2 per cent. Alani's log of cases of birth defects amounts to a rate of 14.7 per cent of all babies born in Fallujah, more than 14 times the rate in the affected areas of Japan.
A contaminated country?

In Babil Province in southern Iraq, the head of the Babil Cancer Centre, Dr Sharif al-Alwachi, said cancer rates have been escalating at alarming rates since 2003, for which he blames the use of depleted uranium weapons by US forces during and following the 2003 invasion.

"The environment could be contaminated by chemical weapons and depleted uranium from the aftermath of the war on Iraq," Dr Alwachi told Al Jazeera. "The air, soil and water are all polluted by these weapons, and as they come into contact with human beings they become poisonous. This is new to our region, and people are suffering here."

The US and UK militaries have sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, but Iraqi doctors like Alwachi and Alani, and along with researchers, blame the increasing cancer and birth defect rates on the weapon.

Abdulhaq Al-Ani, author of Uranium in Iraq, has been researching the effects of depleted uranium on Iraqis since 1991. He told Al Jazeera he personally measured radiation levels in the city of Kerbala, as well as in Basra, and his Geiger counter was "screaming" because "the indicator went beyond the range".

Alani explained that she is the only doctor in Fallujah registering cases of congenital abnormalities.

Dr Samira Alani, who has been working as a pediatrician at Fallujah General Hospital since 1997, has registered 699 cases of birth defects in Fallujah babies since late 2009 [Dahr Jamail/Al Jazeera]

"We have no system to register all of them, so we have so many cases we are missing," she said. "Just yesterday a colleague told me of a newborn with thanatophoric dysplasia and she did not register it. I think I only know of 40-50 per cent of the cases because so many families have their babies at home and we never know of these, and other clinics are not registering them either."

The hospital where Alani does her work was constructed in the Dhubadh district of Fallujah in 2008. According to Alani, the district was bombed heavily during the November 2004 siege.

"There is also a primary school that was built nearby, and from that school alone three teachers developed breast cancer, and now two of them are dead," Alani said. "We get so many cases from this area, right where the hospital is."

Even with a vast amount of anecdotal evidence, the exact cause of the health crisis in Fallujah is currently inconclusive without an in-depth, comprehensive study, which has yet to be carried out.

But despite lack of governmental support, and very little support from outside Iraq, Alani is determined to continue her work.

"I will not leave this subject", she told Al Jazeera. "I will not stop."

This article is republished from Aljazzera (6 January 2012), where the original includes a video titled, "US invasion leaves lasting Iraqi scars".

Thursday, January 5, 2012

"They thought they could frighten Judyth Vary Baker into silence. And for decades they succeeded. But it’s too late to shut her up now. She’s already blown the whistle! And she did it for her friend Lee Oswald. Judyth’s story is a dark odyssey of disease, murder and betrayal, but it is one laced with innocence, hope and love." —Edward T. Haslam

Review by Stuart Bramhall

Me & Lee is a memoir by the only surviving member of a top secret New Orleans research team (also described at length in Ed Haslam’s 2007 Dr. Mary’s Monkey – which I have also reviewed) which attempted, in 1963, to develop a biologic warfare agent to assassinate Castro. Baker’s memoir has a forward by Haslam (see * below) and an afterward by longtime assassination researcher Jim Marrs. It’s also extensively footnoted and cross referenced with photos, news clippings and other documents from Baker’s personal records, Warren Commission testimony, and other records from the JFK archives.

A science prodigy, Judyth Vary Baker was only nineteen when she joined this project. The major strength of Lee & Me is the author’s ability to capture the naive idealism behind Baker’s determination to “conquer” cancer. As much a character study as an expose, the book portrays to perfection the blind, headstrong idealism typical of many young people manipulated into joining off-the-books intelligence-security activities.

Baker’s High School Cancer Research

It was obvious from an early age that Baker had a brilliant mind. Thanks to her extreme precociousness and heavy government emphasis on science education (to “catch up” with the Soviet space program), her high school provided her special premises to convert a science fair project into a long term study of techniques to accelerate cancer growth in mice. Thanks to Florida Senator George Smathers, she came to the attention of national cancer researchers. This led to her recruitment, after one year of college, by the prominent anti-Castro, anti-communist Dr. Alton Ochsner of Tulane University. Baker’s role was to assist cancer researcher Dr. Mary Sherman in a project that was sold to Baker as an effort to develop a vaccine against SV-40. The latter was a monkey virus which contaminated the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines given to children between 1955 and 1963.

Baker arrives in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 and discovers that she will be conducting research in CIA pilot David Ferrie’s apartment, rather Dr. Sherman’s lab. Moreover her assignment isn’t to work on a vaccine, but to help create a virus capable of causing “galloping” cancer. Her job consists of harvesting fifty or more mice every week that have been injected with SV-40 viruses mutated by exposure to radiation. She then grinds up the most aggressive tumors, suspends them in calf serum medium and centrifuges them to extract the viruses. She then transports them to Dr. Sherman’s lab to be re-exposed to high intensity radiation.

Baker’s Relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald

Baker unexpectedly meets Lee Harvey Oswald during this period, who will serve as her escort, riding the bus with her to and from work. In addition to her lab research, Ochsner asks her to take a cover job at the Reily Coffee Company, where her immediate boss is a former FBI agent, who is also heavily involved with the anti-Castro movement. Oswald also seems to be instrumental in persuading Baker to overcome her scruples about her biological warfare research, by revealing there is a right-wing/Mob/CIA/anti-Castro Cuban plot to kill JFK that might be derailed if they succeed in removing Castro from power. The line Oswald, Ferrie and Sherman give her that if Castro is assassinated, the different factions will start jockeying for power over Cuba and this will split the coalition.

Baker’s cover at Reily Coffee Company is that of secretary, though her main role is to ensure that Oswald, who also has a cover job at Reilly’s, gets his time card clocked in and out when he’s in the field. Both spend most of their time at their top secret jobs. Baker, who is mainly at Ferrie’s apartment dissecting mice, is never totally clear what Oswald’s assignment is. She describes him as getting regular payments from the FBI and CIA, as well as unemployment checks from a former job in Texas. He seems to be a kind of errand boy, both for the CIA and the Mafia. Oswald has relatives with the Mob and introduces Baker to New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello. The Mafia has lost lucrative Cuban casinos in the revolution and is an eager participant in various conspiracies to get rid of Castro. Oswald also introduces her to Jacob “Sparky” Rubenstein (also known as "Jack Ruby"), whom Oswald has known from childhood.

Inside the Head of Lee Harvey Oswald

I have been reading JFK assassination literature since 1990. Of all the books I have read, Lee & Me provides the most insight into Oswald’s personality and his knowledge of the assassination conspiracy. As Baker portrays him, he comes across as an immature, bookish geek who liked to check out James Bond spy thrillers and quote from obscure literary works. He admitted to Baker that he was ashamed of hitting his wife Marina (for insulting his manhood) but seemed unable to stop. He also had strong personal views about civil rights and routinely sat in the rear, the colored section of buses. In 1963, the South was still militantly segregated. I can see how this might have been extremely irritating to his right wing, racist superiors.
Oswald’s CIA role in New Orleans

According to Baker, he was very much aware that his CIA handlers didn’t trust him following his return from the Soviet Union. He told Baker that fake defectors were never fully trusted, owing to the possibility they might have became double agents. Oswald was never given the name of the CIA officer running the anti-Castro project he was working for. Oswald only knew him as Mr. B and that he was CIA station chief in Mexico. According to Oswald, this pattern of being assigned a number of minor, unrelated tasks without being clear who he was working for was typical for agents suspected of being “dangles” (double agents). Baker states he only learned his superior’s real name a few days before the assassination. In their last phone conversation, Oswald revealed the man’s name was David Atlee Phillips. In 1963 Phillips was CIA Chief of Cuban Operations. In 1954 he played a major role in the CIA coup against Arbenz in Guatemala.

Baker mentions that Oswald helped to organize a shipment of weapons smuggled into New Orleans for the anti-Castro Cubans the CIA was training as paramilitaries. She also talks about an assignment in which Oswald posed as a pro-Castro member of Fair Trade for Cuba to collect names of Castro sympathizers to turn over to the FBI. He was also identified as the agent who would smuggle the fatal viruses into Cuba. This meant that Baker had to train him to change the culture medium necessary to keep them alive.

Baker is Fired from the Project

Eventually Sherman, Ferrie and Baker succeed in isolating a tumor virus capable of producing “galloping” cancer (killing them in weeks, rather than months) in mice. They then inject it into marmoset, rhesus and African green monkeys, where it proves to be equally virulent. In August 1963, Clay Shaw (the CIA contractor district attorney Jim Garrison prosecuted in 1967 for his involvement in the JFK assassination), Oswald and Ferrie transport the virus to the East Louisiana State Mental Hospital, to inject it into a “volunteer” from the Angola Penitentiary. Baker is initially told the patient already suffers from terminal cancer. She subsequently learns that he’s perfectly healthy. It also becomes clear from the blood samples she’s asked to analyze for cancer cells that numerous volunteers have been injected with the lethal virus.

Baker writes an angry memo informing Ochsner that this type of experimentation on human subjects is unethical. He immediately terminates her from the project and threatens her life if she has any further contact with Oswald. By this point the two of them have become lovers. Although Baker returns to Florida with her husband, she and Oswald make plans to leave their respective spouses and elope to Mexico after Oswald smuggles the fatal virus into Cuba.

Oswald Realizes He is Being Set Up

Oswald, meanwhile learns that his assignment is changed, that he is only to transport the virus to Mexico City and hand it off to a second courier. When his contact fails to show in Mexico City, he makes a desperate attempt to get a Cuban visa to deliver the virus himself, which is denied. He is now genuinely concerned about his own safety. The information he possesses makes him a clear liability to the people he works for unless they have a specific use for him. He becomes convinced, at this point, that they are trying to set him up to look like a pro-Castro agent in the plot against JFK.

Despite the promise he has been given to be transferred to Mexico City, his superiors order him to return to Dallas to spy on “right wing nuts” interested in killing Kennedy. He and Baker continue to maintain phone contact, using pay phones and a complex phone wheel they use to synchronize call scheduling. On October 19th, Oswald is invited to join the assassination conspiracy – planned for three alternative locations – Miami (a right-wing informant blows the whistle on the Miami plot and Kennedy forgoes a motorcade to be transported by helicopter), Chicago and Dallas. Oswald plays along, believing he can pass details of the conspiracy to trusted FBI agents who can foil the assassination attempts.

Following the records release under the 1992 JFK Act, it was learned that a tip-off regarding an assassination threat caused the secret service to cancel JFK’s November 2nd visit to Chicago. Oswald told Baker back in 1963 that he was responsible for this tip off. On November 16, he told her that he also passed information regarding the Dallas assassination plot to an FBI contact. Oswald’s wife Marina later confirmed this in a letter to the Chairman of the JFK Assassination Records Review Board. According to an FBI clerk Garrison interviewed during his investigation, the FBI contact telexed the information to the Dallas FBI field office, where it mysteriously vanished.

Validating Baker's Story

Edward Haslam, author of Dr. Mary’s Monkey, has exhaustively investigated her story and defends her for the following reasons:

1. He has confirmed her identity and her claims about doing cancer research in high school through the microfilm file at The Bradenton Herald, while employed there managing their market research.

2. He has sighted the W2 slip she provides for her period of employment at the Reily Coffee Company and confirms that they are genuine.

3. He has personally interviewed Anna Lewis, wife of CIA agent David Lewis, who worked with Oswald, Jack Martin and Guy Bannister in New Orleans’ anti-Castro movement. She confirms that Baker and Oswald were romantically involved in 1963.

I found this book quite convincing and very well documented. It was affecting to read of Judyth's horror at seeing the man she loved shot down by another man she had met in New Orleans. Research by experts on the assassination have established that Lee was framed and that the efforts to implicate him to the exclusion of other parties were based upon fabricated evidence, including the so-called "back yard" photographs. It is clear that justice has not been done to Lee, Judyth, or the American people.

* To protect her five children, Baker kept silent about her involvement with Oswald until her last child left home in 1998, she broke her silence. Her revelations on the Internet provoked a firestorm of controversy, both from pro-conspiracy researchers and Warren Commission diehards, who accuse her of fabricating her story from the wealth of detail on the JFK assassination circulating on the Internet.